TPO 43
The reading introduces Agnostids, which were an ancient species of arthropods, along with some hypotheses concerning the way they lived and behaved. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the theories proposed in the reading.
The author argues that since other species of ancient primitive arthropods were an active predator and vigorous swimmer, the Agnostids might have been free-swimming predators to boot. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that there is no doubt that other arthropods swam in open oceans and preyed on other organisms. In fact, they had large and well-developed eyes which is an integral criterion for a predator to track its prey. Nevertheless, Agnostids had poor vision given their small and poor-developed eyes which made them less likely to act as a potential predator. Additionally, there is no evidence of other specific sensory organs which is crucial for marine predators.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that Agnostids were probably seafloor dwellers owing to the fact that a number of primitive arthropods lived this way. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that seafloor dwellers cannot either move fast or go far away. They chiefly reside in localized regions, while Agnostids occupied multiple areas. As a result, they had to move fast enough as well as swimming a long distance which is decidedly odd for seafloor dwellers.
Finally, the reading asserts that since numerous modern species of arthropods live as a parasite, Agnostids would have been parasites as well. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that a notable feature of parasites is their population which is not large. That they are not colonized in an enormous group is that they will destroy the organism which they are feeding on. Therefore, it is unlikely that Agnostids were parasites on account of their considerable population which has been proved based on the fossilized evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...the theories proposed in the reading. The author argues that since other species ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, well, while, in contrast, in fact, no doubt, as a result, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1673.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27760252366 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77879486157 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558359621451 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.8453520429 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 111.533333333 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1333333333 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7333333333 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37277866607 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119794282882 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0951586876827 0.0662205650399 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213363845575 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578764140171 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.